Quote:As opposed to criticizing a strawman view of what evolution is or isn't, does or doesn't say?
Close your eyes to what the world's scientists say
Yeah, it is to laugh.
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Keith and Company |
Re: HA HA HA | #1 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/11/06 16:49:56 |
Yeah, it is to laugh. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
Still no comment Keith? | #2 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/11/06 18:36:48 |
You clearly have no idea what scientists believe if you will only read what you already believe.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
At least the question is settled. | #3 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/11/06 18:56:59 |
Anyone criticizing the Books faces rigorous Newtonian scrutiny of sources, conclusions, quotes and context.
Anyone criticizing evolution gets a free ride. |
|||
|
|
||||
 Argy Lacedom |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #4 | ||
|
Posts: 2330 01/11/06 20:35:27 |
Quote:I'm not sure what the newt wants to get from the strawman attack on evolution. It's obvious that his understanding of it is not up to kindergarten level. I guess he doesn't realise that selective quotations don't actually ruin a good scientific theory. Einstein invented the cosmological constant only to later recant, saying it was the worst thing he'd ever done. Strange thing is we now find it's very useful at explaining all sorts of cosmological phenomena. Anyone reading a quote from Einstein about his cosmological "blunder" today would only conclude how silly he was to dismiss it in the first place. Even if the quotes the Newt put up were real recantations from the "experts", it doesn't change the fact that evolution is one of the most powerful scientific theories developed by mankind. All it would do is show that the "experts" were silly to reach such wrong conclusions! ________________________________________________________________________
If there is evil in the world in lies in the lack of doubt. I am suspicious of the idea of the righteous. - Tilda Swinton |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #5 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/12/06 04:18:17 |
Quote:I think you are seriously underminding the work of scientists, but at least you admit it's a merely a theory and not a fact, and a theory no two scientists can seem to agree on. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #6 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/12/06 07:59:39 |
Quote:Remember when you first got here and thought everyone was labeling you a christain apologist? Actually, we were more noting that you were constantly using standard lame christain apologies that we'd seen time and again, and said you LOOKED like an apologist. Now, it's fairly clear what you are. A real skeptic would probably look up why 'evolution' is both a fact and a theory, and understand the difference. Quote:Actually, it's a theory that 95% of the scientists in America accept in the large, but specific details are debated within the theory, within certain specialities. You really don't know what you're talking about. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Iznomneak |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #7 | ||
|
Posts: 3064 01/12/06 08:15:18 |
Quote: I don't think I Newton is being honest about his theological position since he lifted much (if not all) of this post from this xian apologetic page. Check out another gem from this site: www.truenews.org/creation/creation.html Quote: with Science Fiction, all things are possible |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #8 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/12/06 13:55:45 |
Quote:Well, it's possible that he found it at a site that pretends not to be, or at least isn't obviously creationist, which he claims not to read. It might be from a site claiming to be an open minded non-creationist examination of evolution. Could be... Of course, a google for " no transitional fossils (halfway between snakes and frogs, " only finds one site, and it's clearly, obviously and undeniably creationist. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
On the contrary | #9 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/12/06 04:26:21 |
I hate most arguments from christians against evolution.
I have never even bothered to read a christian site or book with their views against science. At least not knowingly anyway. You know yourself how many sites pop up when researching such things and I never read the religious rubbish. I never read christian sience rubbish. I believe their scientists are just as biased and crooked as evolutionist scientists. If I am ever researching anything, I like to go to the source I am against. e.g. I read christian material if arguing a case against christians. I find the information directly from the Catholic Catechism is far more damaging than information from a non-catholic sourse when arguing with Catholics. But as you are probably there are not many christians on this site, and if there are they are certainly not picking an argument with me. On the other hand, there are plenty of Atheists on this site so naturally you have only seen me arguing against Atheists. Send me a christian with typical christian arguments against evolution and I will be happy to take them to task if they are at least slight;y reasonable. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
Re: On the contrary | #10 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/12/06 08:01:49 |
Quote:Then why use them? Quote:And this from the guy who says _I_ am in the wrong for not reading the stuff i disagree with? You are so two-faced. You're quoting creationist arguments. If you avoid the sites that are obviously religious, and as obviously biased as evolutionists, how do you determine which sites have decent arguments? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
Why use them? | #11 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/12/06 14:54:04 |
I don't.
Quotes from scientists can be used by anyone. I don't think there is an ownership on them, though I bet many would wish there was. I have never, as far s I know used information from creationist scientsts or christians or christian sites. I understand mainstream science sources would never dream of repeating such quotes from scientists so I guess if any site does repeat them, they must have an agenda. So be it. They are still verbatim quotes from reputable scientists with no extra comments or fillers from anyone else. Quote:Not at all. christian science rubbish is very differnet from direct quotes from repuatble scientists and most of them evolutionists. Try again Keith |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
Re: Why use them? | #12 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/12/06 15:13:51 |
Quote:Sure. Find a scientist who thinks that a 'transitional fossil' means "(halfway between snakes and frogs, cats and dogs, dogs and horses, horses and giraffes, dinosaurs and birds, apes and humans, etc.)." Quote:Wrong again. But the context would be used. Lady Hope's lies would not be. Quote:Then why is your list of quotes nearly verbatim copy of a creationist site? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
Re: Why use them? | #13 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/13/06 00:45:58 |
They are on a Word doccument where I have hundreds of pages of quotes I have gathered over time. I did not note exactly where I found each piece of information or quote but noted the original sourse only.
I do not deny they well be on a christian site, or that they may heve even come from one. I do not deny that maybe some crafty editing had been done to take the quotes out of context but I already culled those I thought could be taken out of context in some way. Maybe some even slipped through the cracks that truly have been taken out of context, but I doubt it. You know I got much the same response from christians when, a year ago I posted the very same photos we just saw on "Hitler's Christianity". They too were 'taken out of context' 'fabricated' and a total lie and I was disgusting for even suggesting such a thing, I was discredited for using information from what was clearly an anti christian site. The photos, as the quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #14 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/13/06 06:04:23 |
1) Then tell me the reason for the Lady Hope quote?
For someone who's supposed to be a skeptic, you're pretty trusting on that one. First off, there's no corroboration of her story, even from Darwin's wife, who disliked his theory. Second off, scientific theories stand or fail on the evidence, not the personality. If Darwin's ideas were, by his standard, ill formed, they still drew attention to areas where evidence was found. Even if he changed his mind on the subject later, even if he rejected his theories as an older man, that doesn't change the evidence collected, the observations recorded, or the conclusions based on them. Cults of personalities, based on the individual, would be harmed by a change of opinion like that. If a religious figure turned out to be false, or made up, or severely removed from the historical, that might have an impact. But even if there were a reason to feel that LH's bullshit were true, factual and must be accepted as historical, there's no impact on the modern theory of evolution. 2) Where, exactly, did you get this quote-that-stands about transitional fossils being halfway between modern species? That's not part of the 'original source' but perfectly matches the creationist site you probably copied this off of. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #15 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/13/06 16:12:45 |
1) Do not know. I remember being skeptical when I first started reading it as I did not know who Lady Hope is but obviously sounded religious and had to force myself to continue to read it. I still did not like it untill I noticed it a few times in differnet places and only read one objection to it with someone claiming it was a lie and added a lot of other allegations that sounded like the ravings of a fanatic so that sends a red flag straight away. The quote, to me, seems legitimate. Accept it if you like, reject it if you don;t like it, make no difference to me. I have to admit, it is not a real quote as she, a dubious source is apparently the only witness. But then too she was apparently by his side a lot in the end and if he was not a christian or at least considering it, why bother with her visits.
2) Probably was a creationist site. You would not have an evolutionist site repeating such a thing. Same as I say about the Hitler photos, you will not have a christian site posting those photos, does not mean they are fake as christians claim. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #16 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/13/06 21:45:41 |
Quote:That was her claim, yes. Of course, when she started telling her story and getting press, Darwin's Wife, who never really liked The Theory, and his daughter both said that she was not up to the house, nor did she spend time at his side. The reason it gets lots of press is because people who DO follow personality cults figure if there is dirt on Darwin, then those who "follow" Darwin will loose their faith. Same reason lots of people offer quotes to show that Einstein was a theist. Figure if we like science and rationality, and they can prove a smart guy liked God, then being an atheist would be the same as saying we're smarter than Einstein. Quote:Wait. You said you never ever to the best of your knowledge quoted creationist sites. You don't even read them. Now you _DO_ quote them? You must have outstanding whiplashinsurance. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #17 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/14/06 00:01:53 |
Probably was an creationist site.
I'm sure there are religious sites out there dressing up as something else. I do not look into who owns or funds the site, I do not have the time. Just as some sights I have looked at to download damaging information against christians have later turned out to be anti christian which I make my best efforts not to bother with. But once again I can only go so far with trying to figure out what they are. Then too, photos and quotes are far better than just the ramblings of some anti christian or anti evolutionist, no matter how much sense either one may well make. You, like Bad, are trying too hard to find contradictions. Not that I blame you, but you are not trying to understand. You are far too clouded with trying to find fault. I do not expect you to understand anything that is said if you approach the discussion from that angle. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
fascinating | #18 | ||
|
Posts: 3733 01/14/06 07:31:43 |
Quote:Problems are found with your quotes, with your apparent sources, with your disclaimers, with your conclusions, and with your level of understanding of matters you're critiquing. And your defense? To claim that it's the problem of those opposed. How terribly christain of you. You're a troll. Time spent to educate you would seriously detract from online porning. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Badsidhe |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #19 | ||
|
Posts: 3190 01/14/06 07:39:34 |
Quote: So again, instead of defending or explaining your conclusions and ideas, you turn to attacking the character of your opposition. I suppose it is easier than actually having a logical, reasonable argument. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Yark Hutprancer |
PWNT | #20 | ||
|
Posts: 3770 01/14/06 11:07:32 |
"If I were God, and I made myself into a regular ol' person, I would have written down the stuff I said myself. I would have had people there with me taking notes. I wouldn't rely on people from the generation after my death to get the story right." - i would be an astronaut on the SAB Message Board |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
I guess so | #21 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/15/06 03:32:15 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Yark Hutprancer |
Re: Why use them? | #22 | ||
|
Posts: 3770 01/13/06 06:30:56 |
Keith & Co's point is that even if Darwin announced clearly to the world that he was making evidence up, that he just hated god, that he was insane, that doesn't mean that evolution didn't happen. He might have accidentally stumbled on the truth even if he was insane.
In other words: The truth or falseness of the Lady Hope story has no bearing on the truth or falseness of the theory of evolution. Only a weak logical mind would not see this. This quote should in no way affect a person's view of evolution. ONLY EXAMINATION OF THE THEORY ITSELF SHOULD. Quote mining is a POOR way to try to disprove a theory. Period. Yet believers (and now even alleged nonbelievers like yourself) keep doing it. "If I were God, and I made myself into a regular ol' person, I would have written down the stuff I said myself. I would have had people there with me taking notes. I wouldn't rely on people from the generation after my death to get the story right." - i would be an astronaut on the SAB Message Board |
|||
|
|
||||
|
I Newton |
Re: Why use them? | #23 | ||
|
Posts: 1209 01/13/06 16:15:18 |
Then simply disregard the quote f it bothers you that much Yark. Don't lose any more sleep over it.
There are plenty of other quotes there for you to worry about. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Yark Hutprancer |
Re: Why use them? | #24 | ||
|
Posts: 3770 01/14/06 11:08:51 |
Still teaching, I see. You have an amazing knack for making your problems everyone else's.
"If I were God, and I made myself into a regular ol' person, I would have written down the stuff I said myself. I would have had people there with me taking notes. I wouldn't rely on people from the generation after my death to get the story right." - i would be an astronaut on the SAB Message Board |
|||
